What about the TRegExpr library?
http://www.regexpstudio.com/TRegExpr/TRegExpr.html
The license is MIT-like...
Cheers,
Flávio
On 10/31/07, Bee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, considering that perl's or Python's speed greatly rely on the
underlying C-implementation of (at least) particular
Recent versions of JCL include a pcre header, too.
Even a .obj is provided for linking statically :-)
-Flávio
On 10/31/07, Jeff Pohlmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the easiest is simply making a FPC header to
pcre, it might be useful even.
I did that, once upon a time...
No more strlen:
http://www.hu.freepascal.org/fpcircbot/cgipastebin?msgid=1432
This doesn't work if you have spaces in front of the tags
sometag
sometag
I'm not sure if the Perl one fails too though.
I don't have perl installed and can't test it ;-)
A real parser doesn't
Daniël Mantione schreef:
Op Wed, 31 Oct 2007, schreef Vincent Snijders:
Florian Klaempfl schreef:
Vincent Snijders schrieb:
Why not SetLength(s,i)? StrLen is _very_ expensive. I don't see a way
how another #0 can be before.
No more strlen:
Or even better, give a clear problem description.
TASKS:
First, is to count number of words inside the document.
Second, is to count number of unique words inside the document.
INPUT:
Document format is using HTML-like format for storing articles. Here's
the format:
DOC (contains an
Bee schreef:
TStrings is meant for GUI purposes. It's design and implementation are
not optimized.
Then its our task to optimize it more (and more) so it could as fast as
Perl. What I meant here is using standard or default FPC's
classes/units. ;) I don't count any third parties
TStrings is meant for GUI purposes. It's design and implementation are
not optimized.
Then its our task to optimize it more (and more) so it could as fast as
Perl. What I meant here is using standard or default FPC's
classes/units. ;) I don't count any third parties class/units/library or
I had never used Perl before. Until someone showed me Perl is very fast
for text processing (using its powerful regex), despite it's an
interpreted language. It even beat Delphi and FPC though both are
compiled language. A few lines Perl program almost two times faster than
a few pages
TStrings is meant for GUI purposes. It's design and implementation are
not optimized.
Then its our task to optimize it more (and more) so it could as fast as
Perl. What I meant here is using standard or default FPC's
classes/units. ;) I don't count any third parties class/units/library
Bee schreef:
If you just want to show off, the easiest is simply making a FPC
header to
pcre, it might be useful even.
Making a header on top of other libraries written by other languages is
showing that FPC is lack of powerful units/libraries. For some
particular cases maybe it's alright.
On 31 Oct 2007, at 10:40, Bee wrote:
If you just want to show off, the easiest is simply making a FPC
header to
pcre, it might be useful even.
Making a header on top of other libraries written by other
languages is showing that FPC is lack of powerful units/libraries.
It merely means
If you just want to show off, the easiest is simply making a FPC header to
pcre, it might be useful even.
Making a header on top of other libraries written by other languages is
showing that FPC is lack of powerful units/libraries. For some
particular cases maybe it's alright. For example
To give you a head start, check out:
http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/fpc/trunk/packages/base/regexpr/
You read my mind! I've just been thinking about to use fpc's regex unit. :D
It needs testing and fixing.
How is it compare with regex that comes from FPC 2.0.4? I still can't
upgrade to fpc
On 31 Oct 2007, at 11:00, Bee wrote:
It merely means you don't want to waste time on rewriting a
perfectly good library simply because of abstract language
purity reasons. It is completely irrelevant in what language a
library is written if it works well with your program and does
what
It merely means you don't want to waste time on rewriting a perfectly
good library simply because of abstract language purity reasons. It is
completely irrelevant in what language a library is written if it works
well with your program and does what you want.
Yes. If C is very good, I won't
Heck, I'm not even a programmer, and this kludge is
about 25% faster than your perl script on my machine
program koleski;
{$MODE OBJFPC} {$H+}
uses classes, strings;
var
f: text;
s:ansistring;
wc:longint=0;
wl, ul:TStringList;
i,n:LongInt;
begin
assign(f, 'Koleksi.dat');
Heck, I'm not even a programmer, and this kludge is
about 25% faster than your perl script on my machine
Nope. It's still more or less twice slower. :-D
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ time perl koleksi.perl
Word count: 126944
Unique word count: 11793
real0m0.208s
user0m0.204s
sys
this kludge is about 25% faster than your perl script
on my machine
Nope. It's still more or less twice slower. :-D
I guess it depends on the hardware:
% time koleksi.pl # perl
Word count: 126944
Unique word count: 11793
real0m1.019s
user0m0.992s
sys 0m0.028s
% time
Jeff Pohlmeyer schreef:
this kludge is about 25% faster than your perl script
on my machine
Nope. It's still more or less twice slower. :-D
I guess it depends on the hardware:
% time koleksi.pl # perl
Word count: 126944
Unique word count: 11793
real0m1.019s
user0m0.992s
sys
AMD-K6-700 / SuSE-10.3 / Linux-2.6.22 / perl-5.8.8 / fpc-2.2.0
Probably because the different fpc version, no? I'm using fpc 2.0.4.
However, this is a good news. :)
-Bee-
has Bee.ography at:
http://beeography.wordpress.com
___
fpc-pascal
If you just want to show off, the easiest is simply making a FPC header to
pcre, it might be useful even.
Someone had worked on it using Delphi7 and PCRE. A little optimization
is done on the TStringList, it uses CompareText instead of CompareStr
for text comparison. It does faster than
the easiest is simply making a FPC header to
pcre, it might be useful even.
I did that, once upon a time...
http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/526004_qpvr0/pcre-fpc.tar.gz
-Jeff
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
I made it three times as fast on my computer (windows 2000, fpc 2.3.1,
P4 1.5 Ghz) using a hashlist for the unique word count. Using a larger
textbuf gave an additional 10% speed up:
Arrrggg, I hate myself for not able to upgrade to fpc v.2.2.0! I
can't find TFPStringHashTable on fpc
On 31/10/2007, Bee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vincent said it was 3 times faster. I expected the result would be about
0.10s. Or am I wrong?
Maybe that's machine dependent I'll try the one without the hash
table to see the difference. Otherwise, lets just compare the sys
time and say it's
Bee schreef:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:word_parser$ time ./project1
Word count:126944
Unique word count:11793
real0m0.185s
user0m0.140s
sys 0m0.000s
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:word_parser$ time perl project1.perl
Word count: 126944
Unique word count: 11793
real0m0.281s
user0m0.244s
sys
Bee schreef:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:word_parser$ time ./project1
Word count:126944
Unique word count:11793
real0m0.185s
user0m0.140s
sys 0m0.000s
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:word_parser$ time perl project1.perl
Word count: 126944
Unique word count: 11793
real0m0.281s
user0m0.244s
sys
On 31/10/2007, Vincent Snijders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe I have a relatively slow computer, so I get more speedup. Keep in mind,
that
disk time is constant.
I'm also not sure if FPC compiler parameters where used. I did.
I compiled as:fpc project1.pas
Anyway, here is the Hash
Well done Vincent!! :-) I can confirm your results...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:word_parser$ time ./project1
Word count:126944
Unique word count:11793
real0m0.185s
user0m0.140s
sys 0m0.000s
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:word_parser$ time perl project1.perl
Word count: 126944
Unique word count: 11793
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:word_parser$ time ./project1
Word count:126944
Unique word count:11793
real0m0.185s
user0m0.140s
sys 0m0.000s
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:word_parser$ time perl project1.perl
Word count: 126944
Unique word count: 11793
real0m0.281s
user0m0.244s
sys 0m0.016s
On 31/10/2007, Vincent Snijders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe I have a relatively slow computer, so I get more speedup. Keep in
mind, that
disk time is constant.
I'm also not sure if FPC compiler parameters where used. I did.
I compiled as:fpc project1.pas
It could be wise to
I had never used Perl before. Until someone showed me Perl is very fast
for text processing (using its powerful regex), despite it's an
interpreted language. It even beat Delphi and FPC though both are
compiled language. A few lines Perl program almost two times faster than
a few pages pascal
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
I had never used Perl before. Until someone showed me Perl is very fast
for text processing (using its powerful regex), despite it's an
interpreted language. It even beat Delphi and FPC though both are
compiled language. A few lines Perl
On 31/10/2007, Marco van de Voort [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It could be wise to add -O3 for anything considered a benchmark :-)
It squeezed another 0.015s out of the time making it even faster. :-)
Regards,
- Graeme -
___
fpGUI - a
On 31/10/2007, Bee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alright everyone. The answers are enough. Now I can say confidently that
pascal (fpc v.2.2) is FASTER than Perl, including in text processing. ;)
Thank you very much to everyone who involves in this thread. :)
That was fun!!! :-0 So what's the
Marco van de Voort schreef:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
I had never used Perl before. Until someone showed me Perl is very fast
for text processing (using its powerful regex), despite it's an
interpreted language. It even beat Delphi and FPC though both are
compiled
Bee schreef:
But people who have seen
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=regexdnalang=all
may have doubted that.
Vincent, are we connected or what?! I was about to post the very exact
URL! :-D
I wonder where fpc would end up in that list,
A: if it uses its own
On 31/10/2007, Graeme Geldenhuys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That was fun!!! :-0 So what's the task for tomorrow? ;-)
for tomorrow the homework is: improve fpc regexp capability and get
fpc in the top 5 on the regex-dna shootout ratings ;)
Regards,
- Graeme -
henry
Sure, but as Jonas pointed out it is better to use a good library than
the write a bad library yourself.
And someone would claim that the speed comes from the library (c?), not
from pascal. :P It's a LANGUAGE shootout btw, not LIBRARY shootout.
Maybe you had forgotten that. ;)
-Bee-
has
Bee schreef:
Sure, but as Jonas pointed out it is better to use a good library than
the write a bad library yourself.
And someone would claim that the speed comes from the library (c?), not
from pascal. :P It's a LANGUAGE shootout btw, not LIBRARY shootout.
Maybe you had forgotten that. ;)
On Wednesday 31 October 2007 14:19, Bee wrote:
Sure, but as Jonas pointed out it is better to use a good library
than the write a bad library yourself.
And someone would claim that the speed comes from the library (c?),
not
from pascal. :P It's a LANGUAGE shootout btw, not LIBRARY
A. That is not a problem. A couple of other, non-c participants use pcre.
I myself would consider them lacks of the language advantage on their own.
B. The same is done with pidigits.
C. It shows that fpc has good interoperability.
We could submit more than one programs, one using fpc own
Well, considering that perl's or Python's speed greatly rely on the
underlying C-implementation of (at least) particular functionality, all
those comparisons basically boil down to C vs. C, anyway. Or don't
they?
Exactly! That's why I prefer to use fpc own regexpr unit. :)
-Bee-
has
Vincent Snijders schrieb:
Jeff Pohlmeyer schreef:
this kludge is about 25% faster than your perl script
on my machine
Nope. It's still more or less twice slower. :-D
I guess it depends on the hardware:
% time koleksi.pl # perl
Word count: 126944
Unique word count: 11793
real
Florian Klaempfl schreef:
Vincent Snijders schrieb:
Jeff Pohlmeyer schreef:
s[i]:=#0;
SetLength(s,StrLen(@s[1]));
Why not SetLength(s,i)? StrLen is _very_ expensive. I don't see a way
how another #0 can be before.
That is right, I am working on a version which does not
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:56:04 +0100 (CET)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco van de Voort) wrote:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
I had never used Perl before. Until someone showed me Perl is
very fast for text processing (using its powerful regex), despite
it's an interpreted
Well, considering that perl's or Python's speed greatly rely on the
underlying C-implementation of (at least) particular functionality, all
those comparisons basically boil down to C vs. C, anyway. Or don't
they?
Exactly! That's why I prefer to use fpc own regexpr unit. :)
-Bee-
Word count: 126944
Unique word count: 11793
real0m0.281s
user0m0.244s
sys 0m0.016s
Can someone do a test for 5 minutes of parsing and see if things slow down or
speed up for one of the programs?
That takes away process load time too..
example: the time it takes to fork
Word count: 126944
Unique word count: 11793
real0m0.281s
user0m0.244s
sys 0m0.016s
Can someone do a test for 5 minutes of parsing
Rather I mean can someone do a more realistic test such as parsing 1500 files
instead of one single file. At least in my line of
Op Wed, 31 Oct 2007, schreef Vincent Snijders:
Florian Klaempfl schreef:
Vincent Snijders schrieb:
Why not SetLength(s,i)? StrLen is _very_ expensive. I don't see a way
how another #0 can be before.
No more strlen:
http://www.hu.freepascal.org/fpcircbot/cgipastebin?msgid=1432
One
Florian Klaempfl schreef:
Vincent Snijders schrieb:
Why not SetLength(s,i)? StrLen is _very_ expensive. I don't see a way
how another #0 can be before.
No more strlen:
http://www.hu.freepascal.org/fpcircbot/cgipastebin?msgid=1432
Vincent
___
On 01/11/2007, Vincent Snijders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No more strlen:
http://www.hu.freepascal.org/fpcircbot/cgipastebin?msgid=1432
Wow, that version improved quite a bit from the previous one!!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:word_parser$ time ./project1_fast
Word count:126944
Unique word count:11793
Hi all,
I had never used Perl before. Until someone showed me Perl is very fast
for text processing (using its powerful regex), despite it's an
interpreted language. It even beat Delphi and FPC though both are
compiled language. A few lines Perl program almost two times faster than
a few
Hi all,
I had never used Perl before. Until someone showed me Perl is very fast
for text processing (using its powerful regex), despite it's an
interpreted language. It even beat Delphi and FPC though both are
compiled language. A few lines Perl program almost two times faster than
a few
Give us a test case (some example source code) and I will beat the living crap
out of any perl script. Perl is built using Cee, so anything Perl can do Cee can
do better.. which means Pascal can do better or similar. Perl is not written in
Perl. In other words, perl is just a wrapper around the
Bee schreef:
The pascal counter-part resulting almost twice slower. Though not as
simple as Perl, the pascal code is quite simple and only using standar
fpc's units. But, I won't post the code here to not influence your
logic. ;)
For me it would be better if you posted the pascal program,
55 matches
Mail list logo
